I've finally had enough of paying Sky for poor tv that I hardly watch just because I wanted to use their broadband. I am looking at a different broadband supplier so Mr. Murdoch won't be getting another penny out of me soon. It looks like the Humax HD Foxsat recorder is the only viable option. It's a real shame that a twin tuner SD freesat box is not available as I have had a Sky HD box for ages and the lack of decent programs makes me not really that bothered about it. But one is not available and I am not keen on freeview.

So regarding the other box, I understand that it does not have the RF2 outlet on it like Sky boxes. I have read a little about using some CAT5 cable or something and making a scart. Whether this is true I don't know. But what i was really wondering is I know that you can copy the content off the Humax onto a USB hard disk, as long as it is not copy protected. What format is an SD recording outputted as? Can it only be watched on a PC? Or does it need some kind of conversion on a pc to make it watchable on a DVD or a USB drive plugged into a DVD player (avi file).

Thanks for any help.

For the RF output, you can buy a modulator (lots on ebay) which plugs into the Scart socket of the HDR, then plug your co-ax going to your remote TV into the modulator.

The SD files copied to USB are an MPEG2 stream contained in a .ts file.

The free VLC Player will play it on a PC and can also convert it ready to burn to a DVD.

Rgds.

Les.

So it's someone else' fault that you made an ill-informed choice?

FYI - The Humax PVR is not without its own issues. It seems to do a pretty good job for most people but if you're liable to throw your toys out of the pram it's best you learn that now.

FYI - Sky is a superset of Freesat. If there wasn't enough choice for you on Sky then there'll be even less on Freesat. I'm not knocking Freesat here - just pointing out the truth. There's almost nothing on Freesat or Freeview that isn't also available on Sky and quite a few free channels that are only available from Sky. There are also considerably more HD channels on Sky. Even if you don't pay the HD sub you still have access to more HD content.

Why? There's little or no difference between Freeview and Freesat. In fact a couple of reasonably well known channels (Fiver and Five USA) are only available on Freeview or Sky.

Still a Freesat PVR will save money eventually and if you only want to record free stuff then it does make more sense than paying for Sky+ every month.

The HUMAX PVR is more reliable than my sky+ box(s) ever were.



The OP was not complaining that there wasn't enough choice, he was just complaining that $ky's general output was rubbish. I am assuming that he is perfectly happy with the main FTA channels and spends most of his time watching those (as do a lot of people).


I recommend the HUMAX PVR as would many on this forum. If you watch mainly FTA programmes and you are not bothered about Fiver, FiveUS or Dave then its well worth the investment and you get HD for free.

A few people have had issues with it but many more have issues with their sky+ box.

He didn't say it was someone else's fault. He just said he was fed up with it. No problem there.


He's not throwing his toys out of the pram he's simply changing his arrangements to something he feels will be more suitable.


Unless he meant that he found plenty to watch that is available on Freesat and realised he was wasting his money paying for Sky to watch a couple of non-FTA programmes each week.





Thanks for the Sky advert.

I'm sure that no one here had any idea that there were channels on Sky that you can't get on Freesat.


Reception problems, perhaps?


There certainly is if you can't reliably receive Freeview.

Wokeye,

I'm not going to debate the performance of the HDR, that is a perceived opinion as some have been lucky (I'm one) and others not. But I can say that after five months you'd be saving money over Sky.

As for any programmes you may have lost, you can always download these from a Torrent site and stream them to your TV.

So that's a £60 a month saving and you can still view the same programmes/crap as before (again, a perceived view).

PJ

I have had my box for 10 months and I am only just beginning to discover the full potential of it.

As the OP stated the format for SD files is .TS which can be watched on the VLC player. As an experiment, I tried burning .TS files to DVD, primarily ITV programs such as "Blue Murder" with the intention of removing the ads. To do this I downloaded the 15-day trial programme of VideoReDo. The results were excellent with virtually no loss of quality.

I am now also (with the help other forum members) compiling my CD music collection and transferring the results to the Music section of the Humax. The sound is fantastic, and when you know how, it's so easy too.

The Humax HDR is a great bit of kit

He did mention that he only went for Sky TV in order to get the broadband. In that case he had presumably already assessed the value of the TV and concluded it was irrelevant compared to the advantages of broadband.

In effect he seems to be saying that because something he never really wanted isn't worth having he's going to cancel the whole deal. Seems a bit odd to me.

Then why not just say that? Why the need to have a go at Sky and personally attack someone not even directly involved in its running?

It wouldn't surprise me. I inferred from the email that it was the lack of choice that annoyed them. Given what seemed to be an odd change of mind in the first place it struck me as possible.

Absolutely - did they say that though?

So it depends how/why they are really wanting to change. Choosing to just save some money is fine and sensible. If they don't want the extra Sky channels but do want to record then the Hummy PVR is the obvious choice.

lol I did not mean to start a debate and I am not really slagging off Sky. As I said I only really bothered with them for the internet, as at the time of getting it thier internet was good value for a good service with also some tv channels thrown in (which I never watch) but I do like the functionality of Sky +. Now I believe I have found a decent broadband provider and as such can make a saving that will pay for the Humax box. I currently do have freeview and it is ok on my 2 Samsung LCD's. But I can definitely tell that the SD picture is better using my Sky box. My aerial is also in my loft, if I was going to use this as my main source for tv I would definitely get a roof one installed which adds to the price. So the main reason I prefer freesat is better sd pictures. Also there is limited freeview in my area, we have lost ITV4 which I used to watch the odd football match on. Times are hard and I need to cut back, so I certainly do not want to pay for something that I do not use. Thanks for the replies though they answer my queries and I think I will purchase one of these machines

Well, think what might have happened.

He may have been offered a deal, thought that there would be a lot of stuff he wanted to see on Sky so taken it. Then, when he had it, he found that there was a lot less on Sky that he wanted to watch so the whole deal is not as attractive as it seemed so he's going to change.

That seems a perfectly fair way to behave and certainly should not get him an accusation of 'throwing his toys out of the pram'.


Why should he not tell people that he was disappointed with Sky?

We have enough Sky shills on this forum telling us at every opportunity that there are more channels on Sky.

And he wasn't 'having a go' at Murdoch, he was simply stating a fact - that he would not (as part owner in Sky) be getting any more of his money.


What's so odd about people realising that they don't watch enough non-FTA channels to make it worth their while subscribing to Sky?

You seem to be extremely touchy about that. If people decide Sky's not for them, that's perfectly reasonable. Given the percentage of Sky's customers who 'churn' I'm sure it happens a lot.


So there's a perfectly sensible explanation but you choose to assume one that doesn't make sense just because the sensible one is not spelled out for you.

Of course it did give you the chance to name check Sky again.


What other reason do you think he might have?

A personal hatred of Murdoch such that he is going to cut off his nose to spite his face by giving up TV he watches so that Murdoch loses a few quid in dividends somewhere down the line?

Your attack on the OP is bizarre. He's simply doing what a lot of other people have done and will continue to do: dump Sky because they find it's not worth the money for them.

On the face of it $ky seem to offer a very good broadband deal but its not quite as good as it sounds when you delve into it.

You can get much better deals elsewhere although without the $ky channel package (which may be a good or bad thing depending on your view of sky's basic channel offering)

Before you get rid of Sky, Think about how much you will be paying for the Humax. £250. The cost of sky’s basic subscription for a year is £210 (12x17.50). Trust me; once you get rid of Sky, It will be fine for a couple of weeks, then your see an advert for a program, or your read about a program in the paper. Soon you’re Miss Sky. I have been without Sky for a year, and like you I got rid of it (I now see that I wasted money as I could have had Sky for another year with the money I spend on the HDR). Next week, I am getting it back, the Humax is going into the loft until further notice. The choice is yours.

Wow could not disagree with this any stronger. I got rid of SKY and I have not missed any of it. I love the HDR and FREESAT. What it does show to me is that the choices we have are a very personal thing as regards what we want from TV as opposed to what we may feel is value (or not) for money.
I still like the feeling of the extra £30-£40 every month I now save.

Why did you not just remove your sky card for a while and test the water. Your posting sounds very suss to me.

I'm with you HAL_9000. I've had my HDR for almost a year and frankly, its more hassle than it has been worth. It is unreliable, quirky and not a patch on my old Sky + box for the simple task of watching a few TV programs.

We now have kids and our viewing habits are pretty normal and minimal. The HDR has bugs that have affected me. My wife wants to go back to Sky and I'm almost with her. TBH the money has been saved with the HDR but i'm coming to the conclusion that the money isn't necessarily what its all about for my family right now.

All i want is a nice, user friendly, reliable system and that may well be Sky again.

Jono

Personally all my probs have been minor. And jonokimber why not be patient and make a decision after the firmware update?

That was quick


Normal and minimal? Why do you want Sky?



Your quite right but, at the end of that year, the pain of paying won't stop.

The programming you miss by not having all those Sky channels are not really missed. They usually come by a few months later on a Freesat channel. And if they don't, download and stream them to your TV.

Hey HAL, as you were paying £17.50 you obviously didnt have any of $kys premium channels (ie sport + movies), so i would be delighted to know what you could be possibly missing thats on $ky (just curious)


In my experience the programmes on $ky's multichannel packages have actually been on FTA first (usually about 20 years earlier !!)

I have had Sky on and off for years, then came Sky + and mainly the wife would find it hard to live without. Hence the Humax PVR. The only thing I used to really like Sky for was the football. But over the last couple of years my interest in this has decreased dramatically. I could not care less, and when I was interested I resented having to be subscribed to hundreds of rubbish channels to watch it. People should be able to pay for what they actually want to watch, which will never happen with Sky, you always have to be lumbered with some basic channel package also. You try to keep costs down and just subscribe to one of the sports channels, then they put champions league matches and the odd premier league match on the other channels and you can't watch them. By all means people that watch a lot of sport etc, are probably getting value for money. I also have a 4 month old baby so I do not have time to watch a match even if I wanted too, and times are also pretty hard so I want an alternative. It concerns me a little that people are saying that the Humax is buggy. But to be honest my Sky HD Thomson box is very buggy so I can live with some problems. I would also rather buy DVD boxsets or download the decent US shows than subscibe to Sky. Most of the ones I like are on FTA channels anyway.

In mine and many other posters experience the Humax Freesat HDR is nowhere near as bad as impressions given in these forums. I have had one failed recording in 8 months.

In addition to that I have the full Sky + package, so I am able to compare the two. Every week my Sky+ box fails when recording. It has been changed 4 times. Being in the know I can change the box any time. The Sd picture on the Humax is far superior to Sky. The Hd on Humax is superb to. If yhe programming meets anybodys viewing needs. The Humax is fine I.M.O.

That's what put me off Sky from the very beginning. Not "fine-grained" enough.


Yes, I use a combination of DVD purchases and online rentals to cater for the "must watch" programmes that are only on pay TV.

Other than that Freesat is "good enough" for me right now. And in fact I don't have the time to watch as much as I would like to.

I've had two failed recordings and one lock-up that coincided with the second failed recording (actually the problem was that the recording didn't terminate, so had to switch off and on). I've had the Humax since the start of June.

Re: the various bugs and shortcomings - well firstly I'm not very techie and don't try anything too sophisticated. ; secondly, their being highlighted in this forum allows me to work around them. E.g., only scan in non-Freesat mode when I don't have anything in my Freesat schedule (or when I'm prepared to re-enter them).

The Humax is nowhere near perfect from a usability perspective (Sky+ is more usable IMO). But it does the job.

As I said, its ok for a while until you see something.

No, At the time I had all the movies and HD. But I could have dropped my sub to basic, instead i got rid of it.

I think it's necessary to separate the annoyances and niggles which most people have from the serious issues a very few people have, largely as a result of unreliable power supplies (i.e. mains) or faulty boxes.

What magnifies the 'badness' of the picture is people's understandable annoyance at Humax for failing to bring out a timely bug fixing update.

Overall, though, I'm very pleased with my box and am glad I bought it. I'm sure that there are many, many, others who feel the same.